Re: [VOTE] Amend Spark's Semantic Versioning Policy

Thank you for the discussion everyone! This vote passes. I'll work to get this posed on the website. +1 Michael Armbrust Sean Owen Jules Damji 大啊 Ismaël Mejía Wenchen Fan Matei Zaharia Gengliang Wang Takeshi Yamamuro Denny Lee Xiao Li Xingbo Jiang Tkuya UESHIN Hichael Heuer John Zhuge Reynold Xin

Re: [VOTE] Amend Spark's Semantic Versioning Policy

Overall makes sense to me, but have same questions as others on the thread. Is this only applying to stable apis? How are we going to apply to 3.0? the way I read this proposal isn't really saying we can't break api's on major releases, its just saying spend more time making sure its worth

Re: [VOTE] Amend Spark's Semantic Versioning Policy

+1 (binding) I also assume that the implementation of the proposal will be executed carefully case-by-case via enough open discussions. Thanks, Dongjoon. On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 5:20 PM Holden Karau wrote: > +1 (binding) on the original proposal. > > On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 1:32 PM Michael

Re: [VOTE] Amend Spark's Semantic Versioning Policy

+1 (binding) on the original proposal. On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 1:32 PM Michael Heuer wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > I am disappointed however that this only mentions API and not dependencies > and transitive dependencies. > I think upgrading dependencies continues to be reasonable. > > As Spark

Re: [VOTE] Amend Spark's Semantic Versioning Policy

+1 On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 4:55 PM Reynold Xin wrote: > +1 > > > > On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 3:53 PM, John Zhuge wrote: > >> +1 (non-binding) >> >> On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 1:32 PM Michael Heuer wrote: >> >>> +1 (non-binding) >>> >>> I am disappointed however that this only mentions API and not

Re: [VOTE] Amend Spark's Semantic Versioning Policy

+1 On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 3:53 PM, John Zhuge < jzh...@apache.org > wrote: > > +1 (non-binding) > > > On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 1:32 PM Michael Heuer < heuermh@ gmail. com ( > heue...@gmail.com ) > wrote: > > >> +1 (non-binding) >> >> >> I am disappointed however that this only mentions API

Re: [VOTE] Amend Spark's Semantic Versioning Policy

+1 (non-binding) On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 1:32 PM Michael Heuer wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > I am disappointed however that this only mentions API and not dependencies > and transitive dependencies. > > As Spark does not provide separation between its runtime classpath and the > classpath used

Re: [VOTE] Amend Spark's Semantic Versioning Policy

+1 (non-binding) I am disappointed however that this only mentions API and not dependencies and transitive dependencies. As Spark does not provide separation between its runtime classpath and the classpath used by applications, I believe Spark's dependencies and transitive dependencies should

Re: [VOTE] Amend Spark's Semantic Versioning Policy

+1 (binding) On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 11:49 AM Xingbo Jiang wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > Cheers, > > Xingbo > > On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 9:35 AM Xiao Li wrote: > >> +1 (binding) >> >> Xiao >> >> On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 8:33 AM Denny Lee wrote: >> >>> +1 (non-binding) >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2020

Re: [VOTE] Amend Spark's Semantic Versioning Policy

+1 (non-binding) Cheers, Xingbo On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 9:35 AM Xiao Li wrote: > +1 (binding) > > Xiao > > On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 8:33 AM Denny Lee wrote: > >> +1 (non-binding) >> >> On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 1:59 AM Hyukjin Kwon wrote: >> >>> The proposal itself seems good as the factors to

Re: [VOTE] Amend Spark's Semantic Versioning Policy

+1 (binding) Xiao On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 8:33 AM Denny Lee wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 1:59 AM Hyukjin Kwon wrote: > >> The proposal itself seems good as the factors to consider, Thanks Michael. >> >> Several concerns mentioned look good points, in particular: >> >> >

Re: [VOTE] Amend Spark's Semantic Versioning Policy

+1 (non-binding) On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 1:59 AM Hyukjin Kwon wrote: > The proposal itself seems good as the factors to consider, Thanks Michael. > > Several concerns mentioned look good points, in particular: > > > ... assuming that this is for public stable APIs, not APIs that are > marked as

Re: [VOTE] Amend Spark's Semantic Versioning Policy

The proposal itself seems good as the factors to consider, Thanks Michael. Several concerns mentioned look good points, in particular: > ... assuming that this is for public stable APIs, not APIs that are marked as unstable, evolving, etc. ... I would like to confirm this. We already have API

Re: [VOTE] Amend Spark's Semantic Versioning Policy

+1 (non-binding) Bests, Takeshi On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 4:52 PM Gengliang Wang wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > Gengliang > > On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 12:22 AM Matei Zaharia > wrote: > >> +1 as well. >> >> Matei >> >> On Mar 9, 2020, at 12:05 AM, Wenchen Fan wrote: >> >> +1 (binding), assuming

Re: [VOTE] Amend Spark's Semantic Versioning Policy

+1 (non-binding) Gengliang On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 12:22 AM Matei Zaharia wrote: > +1 as well. > > Matei > > On Mar 9, 2020, at 12:05 AM, Wenchen Fan wrote: > > +1 (binding), assuming that this is for public stable APIs, not APIs that > are marked as unstable, evolving, etc. > > On Mon, Mar 9,

Re: [VOTE] Amend Spark's Semantic Versioning Policy

+1 as well. Matei > On Mar 9, 2020, at 12:05 AM, Wenchen Fan wrote: > > +1 (binding), assuming that this is for public stable APIs, not APIs that are > marked as unstable, evolving, etc. > > On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 1:10 AM Ismaël Mejía > wrote: > +1 (non-binding) >

Re: [VOTE] Amend Spark's Semantic Versioning Policy

+1 (binding), assuming that this is for public stable APIs, not APIs that are marked as unstable, evolving, etc. On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 1:10 AM Ismaël Mejía wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > Michael's section on the trade-offs of maintaining / removing an API are > one of > the best reads I have

Re: [VOTE] Amend Spark's Semantic Versioning Policy

+1 (non-binding) Michael's section on the trade-offs of maintaining / removing an API are one of the best reads I have seeing in this mailing list. Enthusiast +1 On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 8:28 PM Dongjoon Hyun wrote: > > This new policy has a good indention, but can we narrow down on the migration

Re: [VOTE] Amend Spark's Semantic Versioning Policy

This new policy has a good indention, but can we narrow down on the migration from Apache Spark 2.4.5 to Apache Spark 3.0+? I saw that there already exists a reverting PR to bring back Spark 1.4 and 1.5 APIs based on this AS-IS suggestion. The AS-IS policy is clearly mentioning that

Re: [VOTE] Amend Spark's Semantic Versioning Policy

+1 (non-binding) Sent from my iPhone Pardon the dumb thumb typos :) > On Mar 6, 2020, at 7:09 PM, Sean Owen wrote: > > +1 > >> On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 8:59 PM Michael Armbrust >> wrote: >> >> I propose to add the following text to Spark's Semantic Versioning policy >> and adopt it as the

Re: [VOTE] Amend Spark's Semantic Versioning Policy

I am in broad agreement with the prposal, as any developer, I prefer stable well designed API's :-) Can we tie the proposal to stability guarantees given by spark and reasonable expectation from users ? In my opinion, an unstable or evolving could change - while an experimental api which has been

Re: [VOTE] Amend Spark's Semantic Versioning Policy

+1 On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 8:59 PM Michael Armbrust wrote: > > I propose to add the following text to Spark's Semantic Versioning policy and > adopt it as the rubric that should be used when deciding to break APIs (even > at major versions such as 3.0). > > > I'll leave the vote open until

Re: [VOTE] Amend Spark's Semantic Versioning Policy

I'll start off the vote with a strong +1 (binding). On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 1:01 PM Michael Armbrust wrote: > I propose to add the following text to Spark's Semantic Versioning policy > and adopt it as the > rubric that should be used when

[VOTE] Amend Spark's Semantic Versioning Policy

I propose to add the following text to Spark's Semantic Versioning policy and adopt it as the rubric that should be used when deciding to break APIs (even at major versions such as 3.0). I'll leave the vote open until Tuesday, March 10th at 2pm.